Thursday, March 31, 2011

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace.

One thing many people have been asking is why Libya? Why now? And who benefits? This week's winner, New Zeal, took a look at the motivation for this war in terms of a new, internationalist doctrine promulgated by the UN and the Obama Administration and the Soros connection in his fine piece, "Responsibility to Protect" - The End of National Sovereignty As We Know It? Here's a slice:

Those who justify the Libyan intervention on humanitarian grounds draw much of their logic from a concept which has dramatically gained ground over recent decades. The concept is known as "R2P," shorthand for the world's "Responsibility to Protect" civilians.

But what does this catchy little phrase mean? Where did it come from? What are its implications? The United Nations reported in July 2009;

The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement an U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S. The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions, and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first. If they don't work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.

In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government's behavior, and that government's leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attacked militarily.

In view of the controversy over whether the new Wisconsin collective bargaining law was properly published and thus in effect, Democrat Judge Maryann Sumi has revamped her previous ruling to say that the law was not published and thus is not in force.

This is quite a far cry from her original ruling, where she stated that she was merely ruling on whether the bill was in violation of Wisconsin's open meeting law and not ruling on the validity of the law itself...but hey, lawfare is lawfare.

And I'm sure her son, who runs a company that lobbies for public employee unions and her union activist husband are certainly pleased.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called the order "judicial activism at its worst."

"Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs," said a statement he issued.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration said it would comply and discontinue the implementation of the law, and the next step is the State Supreme Court, which has not said it will take the case yet.

Unlike some other state's Wisconsin's Supreme Court justices are elected, and the controversy has affected an upcoming race.

Incumbent David Prosser is being challenged by Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, for a ten-year term. The election is April 5th.

Kloppenburg is a former environmental lawyer and a fairly typical Left wing loon. Ordinarily she wouldn't have a chance, but money talks.

By Wisconsin law, each candidate receives $300,000 in public funds and is restricted to that amount, but public employee union groups have spent huge sums on her behalf. The Greater Wisconsin Committee, a leftist organizing group with deep union ties, has funneled $3 million into anti-Prosser advertising. One ad they're running around the clock falsely accuses Prosser of being 'soft on pedophiles' because he allowed a plea bargain for a Catholic priest some years ago when a court psychiatrist testified that forcing the two young victims to testify could cause them serious psychological trauma.

Even one of the victims, Troy Merryfield has come out publicly and said that Judge Prosser's decision was the right one at the time and asked that the ad be pulled. And Prosser, understandably angered, demanded that Kloppenburg disavow the ads "which she knows are false' but so far, she has refused.

“It is the worst ad that has ever been run in a judicial campaign,” he asserted. “If some third party ran an ad supporting me and attacking you, and it was despicable, and it was a lie, I would stand up and ask that the ad be pulled,” he argued. “You are not willing to do that, even at the request of the victim in the ad?”

Uhhh, nope. She isn't.

Right now, the Court has a 4-3 conservative majority. If Kloppenburg gets in, that changes...but not for some months, so Prosser would still likely be the justice that hears the case even if he loses - and the State Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

The Democrats and the public employee unions are also pouring serious money into the state in an attempt to gin up a recall of Walker and other Republican state legislators.

A Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election, and it has gotten some attention from Republicans on the House Administration Committee.

Guess which party they voted for.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.“We simply cannot have an electoral system that allows thousands of non-citizens to violate the law and vote in our elections. We must do more to protect the integrity of our electoral processes,” Harper added.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler testified before the panel the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.

What Gessler's department did was to compare voter registration records with the state's driver's licenbse and state issued ID records.

“We know we have a problem here. We don’t know the size of it,” Gessler said . Colorado is apparently looking into a registration system that would allow asking that some people provide proof of their citizenship in writing.

I guarantee you that if they do that, Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice will come running and sue them to block it.

A better system would be to demand photo ID at the polling places. The Democrats have been fighting legislation like that for years.

If the problem is this bad in Colorado, imagine how bad it is in Texas, California and New Mexico.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Yes, I know...everything Obama said Monday night was pretty much horse manure.

The rebels have been knocked back pretty decisively and have retreated back to the east, losing Sirte and Ras Lanuf. The city of Misrata is now under attack from Khaddaffi's troops in spite of the no-fly zone and the air-to-ground attacks, and it looks like to rebels could be forced back to Benghazi again...which means they wouldn't control the oil the Europeans crave.

And as I remarked before, when have you ever seen the US start supplying arms to people and not send in 'advisers' to show them how to use them? So we're talking ground troops, something Obama flat out guaranteed would never happen.

Another thing that will likely occur is air attacks on Tripoli in order to blunt the advance of Khaddaffi's forces..which means instead of doing what Obama said was our mission, protecting civilians, we're going to be causing civilian casualties.

This is an obscene mess, with America involved in a war in a country that posed no security threat to us whatsoever. After this, we are almost committed to regime change - and hoping that what follows is not simply another edition of Islamist fascism, something we have no guarantee of whatsoever.

This hypocritical nonsense was brought on by our incompetent president's hubris, hypocrisy and bad judgment, and I only hope that all it costs us is money. But I can almost guarantee you it will end up costing us more than that.

Yes Obama leaning on Mubarak to step down certainly has brought dividends - for America's enemies.

For over thirty years, ever since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979, Egypt has cut all ties with Iran.

That has been an important part of America's Middle East strategy, with Egypt as one of the leaders of the Arab World along with the Saudis and a cornerstone of the Arab versus Persian, Sunni versus Shia balance in the region. No more.

Egypt's Foreign Minister Nabil el-Arabi said today that Egypt is ready to “open a new page” with Iran.

“The Egyptian government doesn’t consider Iran to be an enemy state,” MENA cited el-Arabi as saying. “We’re opening a new page with all countries, including Iran.”

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The above video is an excellent reminder of how a real leader acts, especially when compared to the bumbling self justification and outright lies we got last night.

This is President Ronald Wilson Reagan's address to his fellow citizens on the U.S. Air Strike against Libya, 4/14/86.How refreshing to see someone leveling with the American people about exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it.

Durbin's hearings are obviously meant to be a counterweight to Rep. Peter King's House committee investigation on radical Islam.

Interestingly enough,the subcommittee involved, which Durbin chairs, is the Judiciary Committee's new subcommittee on civil rights and human rights, and this is its first hearing.

The odd thing is that according to the latest FBI statistics, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for only 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded in 2009, versus the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish. And I'd love to see the numbers on what percentage of those anti-Jewish hate crimes were perpetrated by those poor, downtrodden Muslims.

In the absence of real statistics, the committee is taking testimony from some interesting sources. One of them is Thomas Perez, the Department of Justice's assistant attorney general who could be said to be the Obama Administration's point man in fulfilling the president's declaration on al-Arabiya that he considered one of his primary duties as president to be the defender of Islam.

Perez has been in charge of efforts like the Obama Administration's defense of the Ground Zero Mosque, the DOJ lawsuit of a Chicago-area school district for rejecting a Muslim middle school teacher’s request to take three weeks off in the heart of the school year to travel to Mecca for the haj (which occurs for four days, between the 8th and 12th days of Dhu al-Hijjah and not for 3 weeks)and inserting the DOJ muscling local municipal governments in central Tennessee over the controversy involved in building a number of mega-Mosques because of the Muslim Brotherhood ties of people involved in the proposed Islamic Center Of Murfreesboro, the murky sources of funding, the process by which permits were issued and the zoning considerations.

Another very interesting star witness is one Farhana Khera, described in one news story as a 'Muslim civil rights leader.' She's actually a vociferous foe of FBI investigation of any possible Islamist terrorist activities, advising her fellow Muslims not to talk to the FBI under any circumstances. In accordance with these principles, she publicly supported a U.S. imam for revealing to a Muslim terrorism suspect that he was the subject of an FBI investigation.And,of course, she also has some interesting ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

But let's dig a bit deeper shall we? How and why did Senator Dick Durbin change his views on Cair so radically?

It turns out that since 2003, Durbin has cultivated some quite close ties with CAIR and the Mosque Foundation, two groups which have both a large presence in Chicago and fairly clear histories of support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Just last week, Durbin wrote a love letter to CAIR's Chicago chapter, saying it "advances a greater understanding of the Muslim culture and serves as an essential thread in the multicultural fabric of our nation. Your efforts to advocate for tolerance promote the civil liberties of all communities."

Tolerance? CAIR?

Last April, he wrote a similar letter to coincide with CAIR's annual fundraising banquet: "CAIR-Chicago's efforts to ensure justice and equality demonstrate that working for greater civil liberties of one community advances the civil liberties of all communities," Durban wrote. "Your organization promotes a greater understanding of the Muslim culture and serves as an essential threat in the multicultural fabric of our nation."

Around the same time, Senator Durbin visited the notorious Bridgeview Illionois Mosque and posed for a happy little photo-op with two Islamists, the mosque’s director, Jamal Said, and the mosque’s imam, Kifah Mustapha, both of whom were named as unindicted conspirators in the Holy Land terrorism trial, a federal bust of a Muslim Brotherhood scam to launder money and smuggle $12 million to Hamas.

I think by now you have a pretty good idea of where this is going.

Durbin knows that Barack Obama has a 78% approval rating among Muslims, largely because of his appeasement of Islam. Muslims, both the more conventional ones and those involved with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam are an important constituency in Chicago.There's a great deal of campaign money involved for those willing to prostrate themselves appropriately, and Durbin comes up for re-election in 2012.

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

You can, too. Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply e-mail me a link at rmill2k@msn.com with the subject heading ‘Honorable mention’ no later than Monday 6PM PST to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Pakistani actress Veena Malik committed a grave sin, apparently..she appeared on an Indian TV show dressed like a modern 21st century woman and actually behaved with love, decency and tolerance towards the Hindus in the cast.

But that hasn't affected her raw courage at all, as she lays into an obscene, hypocritical Muslim cleric who denounces her for her 'crime'...appearing on the Indian “Big Brother” show to show the Indian public across the border that not every Pakistani is a savage, hate-filled monster and that there are Pakistanis like her that 'who believe in love, entertainment and fun.'

Unfortunately, there are a lot more Pakistanis like the cleric than there are like Veena Malik. I hope she's taking adequate precautions.

Monday, March 28, 2011

President Obama spoke to the nation tonight, supposedly to make the case for why we're involved in a war in Libya. After the fact. Retroactively, you might say.

Oh, wait...he didn't make any kind of case for it. He just sort of updated us. Nor did he call it a war.

According to Obama, this was all about what a great humanitarian he is.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

After dithering for weeks and letting all those other Libyan cities get sacked? He ummm...'refused to wait'?

And if it's all about being a humanitarian, where was Obama when the Mullahs were murdering protesters en masse in Tehran and Ishfahan? How about Darfur? What about Syria? And didn't a certain Senator from Illinois do everything he could to sabotage the efforts of President Bush to take out another tyrant who made a specialty of slaughter and mass graves?

You see, that's the thing about President Obama. He thinks we're all stupid except him.

This was about three things: a wag the dog moment for the Prevaricator-in-Chief,rescuing the multimillion dollar oil deals of the Brits and French once they decided to support the rebels and then the tide turned in favor of Khaddaffi, and to provide Obama with a precedent for the UN's 'responsibility to protect(R2P) doctrine.

I'm waiting to see the Left start carrying this sign, courtesy of my friend Greg over at Rhymes With Right:

As for our president, I can't decide what's more despicable....his shredding of the Constitution, his callous disregard for any semblance of truth, his contempt for his 'subjects' or his overblown sense of himself.

As some of you might recall, I've been fairly critical of the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and some of his positions on Israel, which at times seem to be almost a kissin' cousin to those of his anti-Semitic former Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan.

However, his site today has an interesting piece that sheds a great deal of light on something that out to be brought out into the sunlight.Entitled "Goldblog is a Pro-J Street Blog" he makes that point that while much of what J-Street does he disagrees with, he's deeply angered that the Israeli Knesset held a hearing to determine whether J-Street was a pro-Israel organization, and that Israeli PM Netanyahu found time to meet with Governor Sarah Palin ( whom Goldberg despises) but not with the minions of J-Street:

Let me be clear about something: There are many things about J Street I dislike. I think some of its members actually don't like Israel very much, and especially don't like the idea of Israel. I think many J Street supporters are cringing Diaspora Jews who are embarrassed by displays of Jewish muscularity, those displays of muscularity that are warranted as well as those displays that are unwarranted. There is much about J Street policies that I don't like; I think J Street believes that settlements are the root cause of the Middle East conflict; I believe that settlements are a moral and political catastrophe, but that one of the tragedies of the settlements is that the settlements obscure the true nature of the Middle East conflict. {...} And of course I don't like the fact that J Street found it impossible last year to tell the truth about its funding, from George Soros and other people who are frank antagonists of the Zionist idea.

But: J Street is still a Zionist organization. I believe it is fighting for Shimon Peres's vision of what Israel should be, and Yitzhak Rabin's, and more to the point, it is fighting for the vision espoused by Israel's George Washington, David Ben-Gurion.{...}

The Knesset is debating whether or not J Street is Zionist. This is a farce. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, refuses to meet with J Street. This, too, is a farce. The Prime Minister, in fact, will meet with Sarah Palin (whose politics are favored by a tiny minority of American Jews) but he will not meet with J Street. He should argue with J Street, yell at J Street, grapple with J Street, but most of all meet with J Street. Those Israelis, and those American Jews, who believe that J Street, and the spirit it represents, are fleeting phenomena have absolutely no idea what is happening in the Jewish world.

Goldberg contradicts himself, of course. On the one hand, he admits that J-Street is composed of many people who are 'anti-Zionist', dislike the idea of Israel and receive primary funding from George Soros and others who are rabidly 'anti-Zionist', but on the other hand he calls J-Street a Zionist organization and demands that these people who are committed to Israel's destruction have a seat at the table!

He also might want to consider that Governor Palin's numbers are a lot bigger than J-Street's, who have never released a list of dues paying members and count all of the 170,000 hits on their website as 'supporters'.

But all that aside, he touches on something else important. Goldberg (and a great many other Jews on the Left) seem to feel that Israel owes them a vote on how Israel defends itself, where its citizens may live and build homes, and whom it chooses to represent itself in the Knesset and the Prime Minister's office.

Thirty or forty years ago, I might have conceded the point, at least to a degree. I don't any longer.

As Goldberg alludes to at the end of his article, a great many Jews living in the Diaspora no longer support Israel either financially, emotionally or in the voting booth, and the message they give out to the Jewish State is essentially: "Please don't embarrass me with my Leftist friends."

While Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, a great deal of that support comes from conservatives and Christians, and there are a number of good reasons why that is so for reasons that have nothing to do with sentiment or religion. To be honest about the matter, while many Jews who would characterize themselves as 'liberals' still draw the line when it comes to attacking Israel, there are plenty who crossed that line a long time ago.

Having chosen a side, they have little reason to complain.

The election of Barack Obama was the first time in recent American history that someone with long time, intimate ties not only to people who are blatantly anti-Israel but actually anti-Semitic became president. And Obama was avidly supported by a majority of America's Jews.

Many of them were ignorant of his background and history, or simply didn't want to know. But enough of them weren't so that his subsequent actions as head of the most anti-Israel administration in US history should have come as no surprise.

And while I might personally consider it suicidal, they were and are certainly entitled to make that choice.

What they're not entitled to is to feel they have a right to an active voice in how Israel conducts its affairs simply by virtue of the accident of having been born Jews, something many of them try and distance themselves from whenever possible anyway.

J-Street and similar organizations were not formed and financed to promote Israel and Zionism. George Soros put them together to provide a beard, an 'alternative viewpoint' for President Obama's anti-Israel stance in order to negate any accusations of anti-Semitism.

The bird who flies over from the next tree to try to foul someone else's nest has no business feeling slighted when the birds who've chosen to live there take that amiss and try to stop him.

The one privilege Diaspora Jews do have is one given to them by the State of Israel and it's an important one...the right of refuge. Israel does not derive its legitimacy from the Holocaust, but it was formed out of the reeking miasma of its ashes and by the almost one million Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from the Arab world. Many Diaspora Jews can never imagine a scenario when things might change so radically that the country they live in might no longer be hospitable or safe for them, but it has happened before. A strong powerful Israel is vital not only as a deterrent against such things happening in the first place, but for preserving that haven for those who might need it, something J-Street and their ilk seem to find particularly loathsome.

Ironically, if many of these 'anti-Zionist' Jews were in danger, Israel is the first place they'd look to for help and protection, the same Israel they defame on almost a daily basis.

And also, I might add, if the majority of Israelis now realize that Oslo was a huge mistake and choose to reject the Labor/Left establishment Jeffrey Goldberg remembers so fondly for blundering into it, that's frankly the Israeli's business..because they're the ones who have to pick up the pieces afterwards.Jews building homes in Judea and Samaria didn't start the Arab-Israeli conflict, and making another piece of the Middle East Jew-free isn't going to stop it.

Bottom line, you can't demonize a country and do everything you can to delegitimize it and then expect to be welcomed with open arms as family. And to Israel's credit, they are beginning to end the pretense of trying to do so. The parable of the Wicked Son Jews the world over recite every Passover is particularly apt here.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

This week's head to head examines the following question: Is the Obama Administration's changing of policy of to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military both justified and wise during wartime?

Even more to the point, the Obama Administration is considering arming the Libyan rebels, which leads us to another question: when have you ever seen the US supply weapons to anyone without dispatching military 'advisers' to train them how to use them?

But in an interesting twist, the legislation was published Friday to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."

The Legislative Reference Bureau was not named in Judge Sumi's restraining order!

Walker's top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement:

"Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law," he said. "The administration will carry out the law as required."

Bill Cosh, a spokesman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, said in a statement that no action is needed for the reference bureau to publish the law, and noted that Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette is not in violation of the restraining order ( which was actually issued against him) because he didn't direct the reference bureau to publish the bill.

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice will evaluate how the lawful publication of Act 10 affects pending litigation. We have no further comment at this time," Cosh said.

Needless top say, the Democrats and the public employee unions are going absolutely bananas over this.

It will certainly be interesting to see where this goes...and I predict the Obama Department of Justice will likely try to intervene to attempt to kill the law.

The rationale given is that this could be used as a spiffy new way to raise revenues and offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.Funny, I thought the Federal excise taxes and state taxes on gas were supposed to do that...not to mention the taxes truckers pay every year based on weight.

The report, requested by retiring Democrat Kent Conrad ( ND) is pretty detailed, including the development and installation of technology that would be mandated on all vehicles to allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed.

"Do we do gas tax?" Conrad asked. "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to be paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?"

Anyone want to bet that, just like the gas taxes, the money raised is earmarked to be spent elsewhere than 'highway maintenance?

They want you out of your cars and into things like Obama's high speed rail boondoggle.

And between now and then, they want every penny you have and will stop at nothing to get it.

Canada's minority Conservative government led by PM Stephen Harper was defeated in a non-confidence vote today, setting the scene for a federal election in early May.

Legislators in the House of Commons voted by 156-145 to back the motion, which was presented by the main opposition Liberal Party.

Harper's Conservatives have been hanging on because of the disunity of the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloquistes( the French in Quebec). Today, they finally got together and voted en masse to oust Harper's government and go to election.

Being Canadians, their innate decency was very much in evidence, as members of opposing parties who will be campaigning against each other in a few weeks crossed the aisles to hug each other and shake hands after the vote..including Harper and the Liberal's Michael Ignatieff, the man who orchestrated the vote of No Confidence against Harper's government.

One of the apparent issues ( aside from ideology, which was the main one) was the Left's accusation that Harper's government failed to disclose information on how the Canadian government was funding the cost of crime legislation and the purchase of stealth fighter jets.

“We are the people’s representatives,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “When the government spends money, the people have a right to know what it is to be spent on. Parliament does not issue blank cheques.”

“For four months, this House and the Canadian people were being stonewalled by this government and they are being stonewalled still,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

Harper's government has done an admirable job running Canada's economy, especially when you compare it to the previous administration. It remains to be seen whether Canadians want to go back to those days.

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu told visiting US SecDef Robert Gates that Israel is ready to act with "great force" in response to the continued rocket and mortar barrage directed at Israel's civilians from Hamas in Gaza and the deadly terrorist attack on a bus station in Jerusalem.

"We stand ready to act with great force and great determination to put a stop to it," he added.

"Any civilized society will not tolerate such wanton attacks on its civilians," he said.

For his part, Gates said he was very anxious to discuss "prospects for a two-state solution". I have a feeling that's not exactly Israel's priority right now.

The two met together for 45 minutes and had nothing to say about their meeting afterwards, which is to be expected.

In view of how the West is tied up in Libya and what will almost certainly be the coming new Hamas-friendly regime in Egypt, Israel might be better off taking on Hamas now instead of later.

Remember when the columnists and the newsrooms in the dinosaur media were practically jumping out of their shoes touting the Egyptian 'pro-democracy' movement? How wonderful it all was, and how Egypt was going to be the new liberal paradise in the Arab world? How sagacious and wise Obama was for encouraging it all and dumping Mubarak so quickly?

They've finally noticed that the secular unemployed and underemployed twitter addicts and students in Cairo aren't the ones who will be running the new Egypt...it will be the military in partnership with the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood.

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

The Egyptians, urged on by their imams and the Ikhwan turned out in record numbers to vote for early elections that favor the Brotherhood, not the nascent 'liberal' movements. And it is the new Brotherhood dominated parliament that will revamp Egypt's laws and create a new Islamic Republic that will be absolutely sharia-licious.

The rabid response Ikhwan leader Yusef Qaradawi received when he returned to Egypt should have been one clue to the boys and girls at Parvda-on-the Hudson. So was Lara Logan's gang rape while the crowd screamed "Jew! Jew!"

Islam and the western notion of freedom and democracy don't mix, for the most part.

I'm also going to make another prediction, one that seems quite obvious to me. The Obama Administration's policies in Egypt and the Middle East are almost certain to lead to a new war in the region between Israel and the genocidal Hamas, with a good chance of Hezbollah joining in and Egypt participating, at least tacitly and perhaps overtly.

Mubarak was no friend of Israel, but after seeing the Muslim Brotherhood murder his predecessor Anwar Sadat, he realized that they were a threat to his regime and made efforts to suppress them at home and keep Iranian arms out of the hands of Hamas, the Ikhwan branch in Gaza.

The new Egyptian regime is going to be much more sympathetic to Hamas and isn't likely to make any such efforts, even if they elect to go through the motions of observing the Israel-Egypt peace treaty to keep that fat $2 billion US subsidy coming in. As soon as Hamas feels it's ready, we'll see another war against the Jews.

Since Hezbollah now owns Lebanon and is an Iranian proxy like Hamas, they will almost certainly join in. And we could actually see a scenario where Egyptian popular opinion and religious fervor has the new regime putting their US trained and armed military into the mix as well.

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace.

This week, a number of Council members saw fit to weigh in on President Obama's blithely taking us into a war based on a UN resolution without even consulting Congress. This week's winner, The Razor, took a jaundiced but quite accurate look at the end results of our interventions in the Muslim world in his fine piece, Unforeseen Consequences of American Foreign Policy:

Libya is yet another intervention in a long series that have fostered unforeseen and unintended consequences for American policy.

Muslims never allow any good deed to go unpunished. In 1982 President Reagan orders the Marines into Lebanon in order to protect the Palestinians from the advancing Israelis. Hezballah showed its gratitude by detonating two suicide truck bombs that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French soldiers. Beginning with the Carter administration the US backed the Mujahadin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby educating and arming an entire generation of Muslims who went on to attack American and Western interests throughout the 1990s and 2000s – including Osama Bin Laden. In 1991 we stopped Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia. The Saudis rewarded our protection by financing al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups bent on the destruction of western civilization.

Had we not supported the Mujahadin, would Afghanistan be better off today? Would the United States? It’s hard to imagine not. The Soviets had the Mujahadin on the ropes, but success there would not have prevented the empire’s collapse a few years later.

241 Marines would be alive today if we had simply allowed the Israelis to clean the PLO out of Lebanon. It’s quiet possible that the Lebanese and even the Palestinians themselves would have benefited by a PLO that had been wiped out. Perhaps a new organization would have formed to represent them, one less corrupt and steeped in 1960s socialism.

Stranahan is a Lefty who has recently come over from the Dark Side and he's written a number of superb pieces pointing out the hypocrisy and malignant narcissism of her erstwhile ideological stablemates. This is a particularly good one.